I know it’s tedious to bang on and on about this but it does seem quite important that we have some idea of what we’re actually trying to achieve in Libya. Until we have a goal it seems most unlikely that we can have a coherent strategy. At present no-one seems to know what the goal is and the Americans are busy contradicting one another.
For instance, here’s Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff insisting, again, that the operation is strictly limited: “The goals are limited. It’s not about seeing him go.” And here’s National Journal’s Marc Ambinder, quoting an administration official who says “We have multiple scenarios but none of them end with Qadaffi in power.”
Now Mullen probably outranks Ambinder’s source but Ambinder is well-connected and reliable and since his source is not toeing the party line I’m inclined to give more weight to him (or her) than to public blandishments designed to reassure everyone that there’s no possibility of mission creep when, quite plainly, there is and, anyway, the US is more heavily-involved than it likes to pretend is the case.
This is, again, the seventh time in 21 years that British forces have gone into action but none of those previous interventions, not even Kosovo, were begun with this lack of clarity. Afghanistan and Iraq developed mission-sprawl but in each case the initial goal was pretty clear. Not so here, not least since no-one seems able to agree on what the goal should be. This does not seem an especially promising way to start a war.
Comments